JUDGMENT : By the Court: - Heard the parties through video conferencing. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 26.07.2012, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XX cum Special Judge, C.B.I. (other than A.H.D.), Ranchi in R.C. Case No.9 (A)/2004(R) whereby and where under the learned court below has held the appellant-accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as under Section 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- for each of the two offences and in case of default of payment of fine of Rs.10,000/- (i.e. 5,000+5,000) to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of six months in aggregate. It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the complainant (P.W.2) is a Gang-man posted in Gola Road Railway Station and the appellant-accused-Dasarath Mahato was the Gang leader In-charge. It is alleged by the complainant that the appellant-accused was demanding bribe of Rs.500/- per month for getting the complainant transferred and not to make him absent from his duty. As the complainant did not want to give the bribe amount hence he submitted a written report to the S.P., C.B.I., Ranchi which has been marked Ext.2. The complaint of the complainant was verified by Mr. R.S. Solanki, Inspector of Police, C.B.I., Ranchi and the same was found to be true. 4. On the basis of the verification report of R.S. Solanki (P.W.9), FIR of the case was registered. A trap team was constituted. The appellant-accused was caught red handed while accepting the bribe amount of Rs.500/- from the complainant. His hands were washed in sodium carbonate solution and the colour of the solution turned pink. After completion of the investigation, by P.W.10-who is the I.O. of the case, he submitted charge sheet in this case. Separate charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against the appellant-accused and upon the appellant-accused pleading not guilty to the charges, he was put to trial. 5. Separate charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were framed against the appellant-accused and upon the appellant-accused pleading not guilty to the charges, he was put to trial. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution altogether examined ten witnesses besides proving the documents and the appellant-accused examined two witnesses in his defence and also examined himself under Section 315 Cr.P.C. as D.W.3. 6. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, P.W.2- Rohidas Manjhi is the complainant himself. In his deposition, he has stated that the occurrence is of 26.03.2004. He submitted a written report against the appellant-accused. The appellant-accused was demanding bribe of Rs.500/- for transferring the P.W.2-complainant from gang no.12. The appellant-accused is a mate in the Railway. He submitted his written complaint. Thereafter, the officers of C.B.I. assembled and the officers of C.C.L. were also called in the office of C.B.I. He has stated about the pre-trap preparations in detail. They left the C.B.I. office for Gola Station at 8:30 am and reached there at about 11:00 am. They left their vehicles at a distance from Railway Station and reached the Railway Station by walking down. The appellant-accused was not present at that time. They waited for some time. The P.W.5- Prema Nand Barla and P.W.6 –Umesh Shankar Dubey were along with P.W.2. After 10-15 minutes, the appellant-accused came and enquired from P.W.2 as to whether P.W.2 has brought money. P.W.2 told the appellant-accused that he has brought money. Thereafter, the appellant-accused demanded the money from P.W.2. Thereafter the P.W.2 gave Rs.500/- to him. The appellant-accused advised the P.W.2 to return by a trekker and told that the P.W.2 would not be made absent. P.W.2 signaled after handing over the money to the appellant-accused. After which the C.B.I. officers caught hold of the appellant-accused and asked him about accepting the bribe at which, the appellant-accused stated that he has committed a wrong. Thereafter, C.B.I. personnel recovered the money from the pocket of the appellant-accused and compared the number of notes. The number of notes were tallied. Thereafter, the right hand of the appellant-accused was washed in the solution, the colour of the solution turned pink. The solution was kept in a bottle and seized. Thereafter, C.B.I. personnel recovered the money from the pocket of the appellant-accused and compared the number of notes. The number of notes were tallied. Thereafter, the right hand of the appellant-accused was washed in the solution, the colour of the solution turned pink. The solution was kept in a bottle and seized. P.W.2 also signed over the same and thereafter, the left hand of the appellant-accused was also washed in the solution and the colour of the solution turned to pink, the solution was also kept in a bottle and sealed. He has also stated in detail about the post trap formalities and the notes were kept in an envelope and sealed which the P.W.2 identifies in Court and the same was marked material Ext. I to I/4. He also identified his signature on the application submitted by him for transferring from Gang No.14 to Gang No.12. He identified the appellant-accused in Court. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that each Gang has a mate (Head man). P.W.2 made his attendance in January, February, March and April of 2004 in a Register of Gang No.14. The appellant-accused was the mate of Gang No.15. P.W.2 met P.W.9 for the first time in C.B.I. office on 26.03.2004 at 8:30 am. Before the P.W.2 reaching the C.B.I. office, P.Ws.5 and 6 were sitting there. It is pertinent to mention here that there is no cross-examination of the P.W.2 on the point of recovery of money. 7. P.W.5- Prema Nand Barla has stated that he was posted as Senior Inspector of Security in C.C.L. Headquarter at Dharbhanga House. He was instructed to go at C.B.I. office at 7:00 am along with Senior Security Officer P.W.6-U.S. Dubey. P.W.5 went to the C.B.I. office and met Vikash Gupta (P.W.10) who is the I.O. of the case and others were also present. P.W.5 also stated about the details of pre-trap preparation and the complaint of the complainant. The trap team went by two vehicles and reached the Gola Station at about 10:45 am. They got downfrom vehicles a distance from Gola Station and went to the Gola Station by walking. P.W.5 accompanied P.W.2. The appellant-accused was not present at the station and has gone somewhere in connection with his work. After sometime, the appellant-accused came and he was identified by P.W.2. They got downfrom vehicles a distance from Gola Station and went to the Gola Station by walking. P.W.5 accompanied P.W.2. The appellant-accused was not present at the station and has gone somewhere in connection with his work. After sometime, the appellant-accused came and he was identified by P.W.2. The appellant-accused straightaway went to the salary office of Gola Station and returned from there after sometime. The appellant-accused asked P.W.2 that whether he has brought the money and P.W.2 answered in affirmative that he has brought money. P.W.2 handed over the money to the appellant-accused by his right hand. The appellant-accused counted the money by using both his hands and kept the money in his right hand. P.W.5 saw all these occurrences. On receiving the signal of P.W.2, the entire team of C.B.I. reached and caught hold both hands of the appellant-accused by wrist. P.W.10 enquired from the appellant-accused as to whether he has taken Rs.500/- from P.W.2. The appellant-accused became nervous and told that he has committed a wrong. On being instructed, P.W.5 took the money from appellant-accused. There were five notes of Rs.100/- denomination each. The numbers of notes tallied with the number of notes mentioned in the memorandum. The notes were kept and sealed in an envelope. He identified the notes. P.W.5 has also stated about the washing of hands of the appellant-accused with sodium carbonate solution and the colour of the solution turning pink and he has also stated in detail about the post trap formalities and also identified his signature on the relevant document. In his cross-examination, P.W.5 has stated that apart from this case, he was a witness in another case and deposed in court. In this case C.B.I. did not recorded the statement of P.W.5. One day prior to the occurrence on 25th evening it was intimated to P.W.5 by his controlling officer that he had to go to the C.B.I and also intimated about at what time he had to reach. At the relevant time he was residing in the Hehal C.C.L. quarter and the officers of C.B.I. were also residing in the quarters of C.C.L. P.W.6 washed his hands in the solution. It is pertinent to mention here that P.W.5 was not examined in any manner in respect of demand, acceptance and recovery of the money given by P.W.2 to the appellant-accused. 8. P.W.6- Umesh Shankar Dubey is another independent witnesses. It is pertinent to mention here that P.W.5 was not examined in any manner in respect of demand, acceptance and recovery of the money given by P.W.2 to the appellant-accused. 8. P.W.6- Umesh Shankar Dubey is another independent witnesses. He has stated that his controlling officer gave him written direction that he and the P.W.5 was to report at the C.B.I. office on 26.03.2004 at 7:00 am. Accordingly, they reached at 6:45 am. He has stated about the pre-trap preparations in detail. After the pre-trap preparation, they started for Gola Station at 8:15 am and reached there at 11:15 am. P.W.2 accompanied by P.W.5 went to the office of appellant-accused where they came to know that the appellant-accused had gone in connection with some work. The appellant-accused returned at about 11:30 am. P.W.2 identified the appellant-accused. The appellant-accused went to his office. P.Ws.2 and 5 were standing outside the office of appellant-accused. After sometime, the appellant-accused came out and enquired as to whether the P.W.2 has brought money. P.W.2 replied that he is ready with money. The appellant-accused extended his right hand and asked P.W.2 to give the money. P.W.2 brought out the money and handed over the money in the right hand of the appellant-accused. The appellant-accused counted the money by using both hands. The appellant-accused kept the money in his right hand and told P.W.2 that the work of P.W.2 would be done hence, P.W.2 should leave. P.W.2 signaled by combing his hair with his right hand. The entire team reached there. P.W.10 disclosed his identity to the appellant-accused and told that the appellant-accused has received the bribe amount of Rs.500/- from P.W.2. The appellant-accused became nervous. Two officers of the C.B.I. caught hold of the both hands of the appellant-accused by his wrist. P.W.5 took the money from the right hand of the appellant-accused and counted. The number of notes were compared and tallied and told that they were Rs.500/- altogether. The money was kept in an envelope and sealed. The hand of the appellant-accused was washed with sodium carbonate solution and the colour of the solution turned pink. P.W.6 has also stated in detail about the post trap formalities. The number of notes were compared and tallied and told that they were Rs.500/- altogether. The money was kept in an envelope and sealed. The hand of the appellant-accused was washed with sodium carbonate solution and the colour of the solution turned pink. P.W.6 has also stated in detail about the post trap formalities. In his cross-examination, P.W. 6 has stated that C.B.I. officers were residing in the same C.C.L. colony where he was residing and he was in acquaintance with the officers of the C.B.I. At the time of demonstration, besides his hands, the hand of P.W.5 was also washed with sodium carbonate solution. All the members of the team were at a distance of 20-50 yards from one another. It is also pertinent to mention here that there is absolutely no cross-examination of P.W.6 on the point of demand, acceptance and recovery of the money from the appellant-accused. 9. P.W.3- Nogen is the mate of South Eastern Railway. He has stated that he was working as a gang mate of Gang No.14 in Gola Raod Railway Station. P.W.2 was working as a gang man of Gang of P.W.3. The appellant-accused was the gang mate of Gang No.15. P.W.3 sent P.W.2 to work with appellant-accused. P.W.3 get the attendance of all the gang man of his gang. If the gang man goes outside to work, in the attendance register ‘D’ is written in the Capital. P.W.3 used to write D in the attendance of P.W.2 but on being informed by the appellant-accused, P.W.3 used to mark A which mark is given for absent. In his cross-examination, P.W.3 has stated that he has not seen any giving and taking between the P.W.2 and the appellant-accused. 10. P.W.4- Birendra Paswan is the Junior Engineer. He has stated that accused was working as Senior Trackman (Gang No.14) and the appellant-accused was the mate of gang man-15. P.W.2 submitted his application for his transfer to Gang No.12. In his cross-examination, he has stated appellant-accused has no role in transfer of P.W.2. 11. P.W.7- Bimal Chandra Purkait is the Junior Scientific Officer of C.F.S.L., Kolkatta. He examined the contents of the sealed bottles for chemical examination and he has proved the report of chemical examination which was marked Ext. 8. He found the sodium carbonate, phenolphthalein and water in the contents of each bottle. 11. P.W.7- Bimal Chandra Purkait is the Junior Scientific Officer of C.F.S.L., Kolkatta. He examined the contents of the sealed bottles for chemical examination and he has proved the report of chemical examination which was marked Ext. 8. He found the sodium carbonate, phenolphthalein and water in the contents of each bottle. In his cross-examination, he has stated the result of chemical examination was only signed by him. 12. P.W.8- Vikash Chandra Choursiya is the Inspector of C.B.I. He has stated about the constitution of the trap team at about 7:00 am by the I.O. of the case. He has also stated about the pre-trap preparation. They reached the Gola Road Railway Station at 10:30 am and the appellant-accused was not present. The appellant-accused reached to the salary section of the office and after taking his salary he came on the platform where he met the complainant. He enquired from P.W.2 as to whether P.W.2 has brought money. On being asked about the money, the P.W.2 brought out the money from the pocket of his full pant and handed it over to the appellant-accused in the presence of P.W.5. The appellant-accused counted the same by using both his hands and kept in his right hand and he told the P.W.2 that his work would be done and thenceforth, he would not be marked absent. The appellant-accused advised the P.W.2 to go back his house by taking his trekker. After receiving signal from the P.W.2, P.W.8 and others went near the appellant-accused and after disclosing their identity told that he has accepted the bribe from P.W.2. At this the appellant-accused became nervous and told that he has committed a wrong after which P.W.10 and C.B.I. officers caught hold of the hands of appellant-accused. He has also stated in detail about the colour of the sodium carbonate solution turning pink on the hands of the appellant-accused being washed there and also stated in detail about the post trap formalities. In his cross-examination, P.W.8 has stated that he does not remember by which vehicle he went to Gola Road Railway Station but reached there at 10:45 am. P.W.8 has answered the question in negative by saying that he has not heard that the appellant-accused was enquiring as to whether Manjhi has brought money. In his cross-examination, P.W.8 has stated that he does not remember by which vehicle he went to Gola Road Railway Station but reached there at 10:45 am. P.W.8 has answered the question in negative by saying that he has not heard that the appellant-accused was enquiring as to whether Manjhi has brought money. It is also relevant to mention here that there is no cross-examination of P.W.8 also in respect of demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted bribe money from the appellant-accused. 13. P.W.9- Rajesh Singh Solanki is the officer who verified the complaint of P.W.2. He has stated about the verification of the complaint of P.W.2 and submission of verification report. P.W.10 was the I.O. P.W.9 has also stated about the constitution of the trap team and the pre-trap formalities. He has next submitted that they reached Gola Road Railway Station at about 10:45 am. The appellant-accused reached the station about 11:00 am. Thereafter P.W.2 along with P.W.5 met the appellant-accused. Thereafter the appellant-accused enquired from P.W.2 as to whether he has brought money. P.W.2 brought out the money from the pocket of his pant and handed over the same to the appellant-accused. Thereafter, the appellant-accused told the P.W.2 to go back and the work of P.W.2 would be done and his leave would not be cut and the P.W.2 would not be marked absent. Thereafter, the P.W.2 signaled at which all the team members of C.B.I. reached the place of occurrence. P.W.10 disclosed his identity and the C.B.I. officers caught hold of the wrist of the appellant-accused. P.W.10 challenged the appellant-accused of having received the bribe amount at which the appellant-accused became worried and told that he has committed a wrong. On being told, P.W.5 who is an independent witness took the bribe money from the appellant-accused and counted the same. The same was compared and found to be true and thereafter the hands of the appellant-accused were washed with sodium carbonate solution and the colour turned pink. P.W.9 has also stated in detail about the post trap formalities. In his cross-examination, P.W.9 has stated that he cannot say the boundary of the place of occurrence. Two constables apprehended the appellant-accused. He has further stated that the appellant-accused received the bribe money from his left hand. He verified the complaint in C.B.I. office on 26.03.2004. For verification he did not go to the spot. In his cross-examination, P.W.9 has stated that he cannot say the boundary of the place of occurrence. Two constables apprehended the appellant-accused. He has further stated that the appellant-accused received the bribe money from his left hand. He verified the complaint in C.B.I. office on 26.03.2004. For verification he did not go to the spot. He verified by enquiring the complaint and by going through the documents submitted by him and on the basis of the same, he submitted the verification report. He received the complaint at about 6:00 am. It is also pertinent to mention that P.W.9 also was not questioned in respect of his testimony in the examination-in-chief regarding demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted bribe money handed over to the appellant-accused by the P.W.2. 14. P.W.10- Vikash Gupta is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has stated about the complaint being received on 26.03.2004. He was entrusted with the investigation of the case. He has stated in detail about the constitution of the trap team and the pre-trap formalities. He has next stated that they reached the Gola Road Railway Station at 10:45 am. The appellant-accused came to the station at 11:00 am and went towards the office of the station and thereafter came to P.W.2 who was standing with the independent witnesses. P.W.10 was at some distance from that place and he could see the movement of P.W.2 and appellant-accused from where he was standing. He saw that after some discussion, the appellant-accused extended his right hand towards P.W.2 and P.W.2 brought out the money from the inner pocket of his pant and entrusted the said money to the extended hand of the appellant-accused. Thereafter, the P.W.2 signaled and the P.W.6 and other members of the trap team reached near the appellant-accused. P.W.10 disclosed the identity to the appellant-accused. He challenged the appellant-accused of receiving the bribe amount at which the appellant-accused became worried and told that he has committed a wrong. The Constables caught hold of the hands of the appellant-accused by wrist on being instructed by P.W.10 and the P.W.5 recovered Rs.500/- from the right hand of the appellant-accused. The numbers and the denominations of notes recovered tallied with the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap memorandum. The Constables caught hold of the hands of the appellant-accused by wrist on being instructed by P.W.10 and the P.W.5 recovered Rs.500/- from the right hand of the appellant-accused. The numbers and the denominations of notes recovered tallied with the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap memorandum. He has further stated in detail about the post trap formalities including the colour of the sodium carbonate solution turning pink upon the hands of the appellant-accused washed in the said solution. In his cross-examination, P.W.10 has stated that on 26.03.2004 after receiving of the complaint of the P.W.2, the FIR was registered. He met P.W.9 on 26.03.2004 at 6:30 am. The statement of P.W.6 that he was intimated on 25.03.2004 to report at the C.B.I. Office is wrong. He denied that P.Ws.5 and 6 are the permanent witnesses of C.B.I. He did not make any local person as a witness of the case. He has not heard the conversation between P.W.2 and the appellant-accused. The appellant-accused admitted his guilt and stated that he has committed a wrong. The attendance of P.W.2 was prepared by appellant-accused. It is pertinent to mention here that no question was put to P.W.2 as to why in the formal FIR, the date of occurrence has been mentioned as 25.03.2004. 15. P.W.1- Mukul Pant is the Divisional Engineer of the Railway. He has proved sanction for prosecution of the appellant-accused which has been marked Ext 1. 16. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the appellant-accused was recorded regarding the circumstances appearing in evidence against him during the trial and he denied all the material questions put to him except the question no.7 which was regarding acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.500/- by him upon demand from P.W.2 to which appellant-accused replied that P.W.2 has forcibly put Rs.500/- in the shirt pocket but he did not touch the said money in his hands and in response of question no.11 the appellant-accused replied that the said money was recovered from his pocket but he has not touched the money. He has further stated that he will adduce evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant-accused did not say anything to suggest that he was in inimical terms with the P.W.2 and P.W.2 has falsely implicated him in this case for any reason. He has further stated that he will adduce evidence. It is pertinent to mention here that in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The appellant-accused did not say anything to suggest that he was in inimical terms with the P.W.2 and P.W.2 has falsely implicated him in this case for any reason. The two defence witnesses being D.W.1- Paresh Nath Mahto who is a Track man of South Eastern Railway and D.W.2- Niranjan Mahto who is a Cabin Man have stated about the P.W.2 taking Rs.10,000/- as loan to meet the expenses of treatment of his family members with a promise to repay the same in installment of Rs.500/- each but after payment of certain installment he did not pay the remaining amount and upon being demanded he threatened the appellant-accused of dire consequences. The appellant-accused who was examined himself under Section 315 Cr.P.C. as D.W.3 has also deposed about the same but it is pertinent to mention here that though D.W.1 has stated that when the appellant-accused demanded the said amount taken from by P.W.2 then some altercation took place and the complainant threatened the appellant-accused of dire consequences and after about 6-7 months of such occurrence the accused was apprehended by C.B.I. personnel with money. D.W.2 in his cross-examination admitted that he came to know on the very date itself that the appellant-accused was arrested by C.B.I. while accepting bribe amount. The testimony of D.W.1 that there was altercation 6-7 months prior to the occurrence of this case is contrary to testimony of appellant-accused. D.W.3 has stated that the said altercation took place in the month of March, 2004 and the offence involved in this case took place on 26.03.2004. D.W.2 has also stated that on 26.03.2004 on seeing the crowd at the railway platform when he went there he came to know that the appellant-accused was arrested by C.B.I. for demanding money from the complainant and the complainant gave Rs.500/- to him forcibly. According to D.W.2 the said money of Rs.10,000/- as loan was given by the appellant-accused to the complainant 2-3 months prior to the occurrence. 17. Learned court below after taking into consideration the evidence in the record held that the evidence in record is sufficient to establish the charges against the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced him as already indicated above. 18. Mr. 17. Learned court below after taking into consideration the evidence in the record held that the evidence in record is sufficient to establish the charges against the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced him as already indicated above. 18. Mr. Nand Kishore Ram, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned court below failed to take into consideration the evidence in record in its proper perspective and erred in not considering the contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses and has wrongly held the appellant-accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are not trustworthy as it suffers from vice of exaggeration, improvement and contradiction at material aspects. Hence, the same are not sufficient to establish the essential ingredients for bringing home the charge for the offences either under Section 7 or under Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the punishment of which is prescribed under Section 13 (2) of the said Act. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned court below failed to take into consideration that on the date of occurrence no work of the complainant was pending with the appellant and the appellant was the Gang mate of Gang no.15 whereas Rohidas Manjhi was posted in Gang no.14 and even the prosecution witnesses themselves have categorically stated that the appellant-accused has no power or concern to transfer P.W.2 from one Gang to other Gang to be specific Gang no.12 as stated by P.W.4 who is the Junior Engineer of the Railways. It is further submitted that the conduct of the investigating agency being C.B.I. in receiving the written information, verification of the complaint and the trap itself on the same day cause serious doubt on the credibility of the prosecution story. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned court below erred in not believing the evidence of the defence witnesses regarding the motive for false implication of the appellant-accused in this case. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned court below erred in not believing the evidence of the defence witnesses regarding the motive for false implication of the appellant-accused in this case. It is lastly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the above contradictions of the case of the prosecution, the appellant-accused be acquitted by at least giving him the benefit of doubt, by setting aside the impugned judgment. 19. Mr. Rohit Sinha, the learned counsel for the C.B.I. on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and submitted that the contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant in the testimonies of the witnesses are on minor aspects. It is then submitted by Mr. Sinha that there is absolutely no challenge to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses on the material aspects of their testimonies that is the demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted money. The presumption envisaged under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act is attracted in this case, in view of the evidence in record. It is next submitted by Mr. Sinha that as the learned trial court has assigned specific and sufficient reasons in not accepting the testimonies of witnesses examined by the defence as such defence was never raised by the appellant-accused himself either in the cross-examination of P.W.2 being the complainant or his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the defence built up at the fag end of the trial is only an afterthought, prepared for the purpose of this case to escape from the consequence of commission of the offence, by the appellant-accused. It is next submitted by Mr. Sinha that the prosecution has put forth cogent evidence through the ten witnesses examined by it and has established the essential ingredient of the offences punishable under Section 7 and under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 being; (i) demand of bribe, (ii) acceptance of bribe; and (iii) recovery of bribe amount. It is further submitted that the testimonies of none of the witnesses of the prosecution has been impeached in any manner in their respective cross-examination or otherwise therefore the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses are of unimpeachable character and their testimonies are trustworthy and reliable. It is further submitted that the testimonies of none of the witnesses of the prosecution has been impeached in any manner in their respective cross-examination or otherwise therefore the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses are of unimpeachable character and their testimonies are trustworthy and reliable. Hence, it is submitted that the learned trial court having rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused for minimum sentence the same does not warrant interference and this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 20. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the record, I find that in the respective cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses who have stated about the occurrence nothing has been elicited to disbelieve or discredit their testimonies regarding demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted money from the appellant-accused on 26.03.2004. It is a settled principle of law that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Laxmibai (Dead) Through Lr’s. & Anr. vs. Bhagwantbuva (Dead) Through LR’s & Ors. reported in (2013) 4 SCC 97 in paragraph no.40 in this respect has held as under:- “40. Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to cross-examine a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination in chief and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter-alia, in order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicates that the version of events provided by him, is not fit to be believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness box to give a full and proper explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses.” (Emphasis Supplied) So far as the contention of the appellant regarding the testimonies of the officers of C.B.I. and their conduct is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hazari Lal vs. State (Delhi Admn.) reported in AIR 1980 SC 873 that the evidence of such officers should not be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should not be insistence on corroboration. In the facts and circumstances of a particular case a court may be disinclined to act upon the evidence of such an officer without corroboration, but, equally, in the facts and circumstances of another case the court may unhesitatingly accept the evidence of such an officer, paragraph no.8 of the said Judgment reads as under :- “8. After excluding irrelevant material we are left with the evidence of PW 8 and that of PW 4 whose evidence corroborates that of PW 8 in several material particulars. We, however, wish to say that the evidence of PW 8 is entirely trustworthy and there is no need to seek any corroboration. We are not prepared to accept the submission of Shri Frank Anthony that the fact that he is the very police officer who laid the trap should be sufficient for us to insist upon corroboration. We do wish to say that there is no rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of such officers should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration. We do wish to say that there is no rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of such officers should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration. In the facts and circumstances of a particular case a court may be disinclined to act upon the evidence of such an officer without corroboration, but, equally, in the facts and circumstances of another case the court may unhesitatingly accept the evidence of such an officer. It is all a matter of appreciation of evidence and on such matters there can be no hard and fast rule, nor can there be any precedential guidance. We are forced to say this because of late we have come across several judgments of Courts of Session and sometimes even of High Courts where reference is made to decisions of this Court on matters of appreciation of evidence and decisions of pure question of fact. While on this subject of appreciation of evidence we may also refer to an argument of Shri Frank Anthony based on the observations of a learned Single Judge in Kharaiti Lal v. State [ (1965) 1 DLT 362 ], that persons holding clerical posts and the like should not be called as panch witnesses, as such witnesses could not really be called independent witnesses as they would always be under fear of disciplinary action if they did not support the prosecution case. We do not think we can accept the submission of Shri Frank Anthony. The respectability and the veracity of a witness is not necessarily dependant upon his status in life and we are not prepared to say that clerks are less truthful and more amenable than their superior officers.” (Emphasis supplied) It is also a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1974 SC 1024 that police officer cannot be discredited in trap cases merely because they are police officials nor can other witnesses be rejected because on some other occasion they have been witnesses for the prosecution in the past. Basically, the Court has to view the evidence in the light of the probabilities and the intrinsic credibility of those who testify, paragraph no.5 of the said Judgment reads as under:- “5. Xxxxxxxxxxxx In a recent case to which one of us was party (Som Prakash v. State of Delhi [ (1974) 4 SCC 84 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 215]) this Court has held that police officials cannot be discredited in a trap case merely because they are police officials, nor can other witnesses be rejected because on some other occasion they have been witnesses for the prosecution in the past. Xxxxxxxxxxxxx.” 21. After carefully going through the evidence in record, it is crystal clear that the complainant has categorically stated about the demand of bribe money, acceptance of money by the appellant-accused and recovery of the tainted money from him. He has also stated that the appellant-accused after receiving the money has told him that his work would be done. Similarly the other material witnesses of the prosecution have stated that appellant-accused told that the work of P.W.2 would be done by him. It is not even the case of the appellant-accused that P.W.2 was returning part of the loan amount to him on the relevant day, as nothing in this respect was asked to the P.W.2 in his cross-examination and even the appellant-accused in his examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. uttered any such thing. Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses to discard or disbelieve their testimonies. As already mentioned above there is absolutely no cross-examination of the material prosecution witnesses so far as their testimonies regarding the demand of the bribe by the appellant-accused , the acceptance of bribe by the appellant-accused and the recovery of the tainted money from the appellant-accused. The defence tried to be built up by the appellant-accused through the defence witnesses is an afterthought only as no such defence was put forth in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses nor any such thing was ever whispered by the appellant-accused in his examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C.. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are trustworthy and reliable. The contradiction and exaggeration in their testimonies are puerile and are of minor nature, which are common in examination of any ordinary witnesses particularly when he is examined after a long time of the occurrence. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are trustworthy and reliable. The contradiction and exaggeration in their testimonies are puerile and are of minor nature, which are common in examination of any ordinary witnesses particularly when he is examined after a long time of the occurrence. Thus they are not of such nature to discredit their testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The contention of the appellant accused that he was the Gang Mate of Gang No.15 whereas the complainant was a Gang man of Gang no. 14 is of not much consequence as the P.W.3 has categorically stated that on the basis of the report of the appellant-accused the P.W.3 used to mark ‘D’ or ‘A’ of the complainant hence it cannot be said that the complainant had no work with the appellant-accused. There is no quarrel that there was money given by P.W.2 to the appellant-accused and the same was recovered from the appellant-accused. Even D.W.1 and D.W.2 has not controverted the same rather they have accepted the same. In this backdrop, I have no hesitation in holding that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the appellant-accused and recovery of the tainted bribe amount from the appellant-accused. Accordingly, the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish both the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same is dismissed and the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence are confirmed. 22. Perusal of the record reveals that the appellant namely Dasarath Mahato is on bail. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the bail granted to the appellant before conviction is cancelled and the appellant Dasarath Mahato is directed to surrender before the court below within thirty days, failing which, learned court below is directed to take coercive steps for his apprehension for undergoing the sentence. 23. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned court below along with a copy of this Judgment forthwith.